doesnt make a while lotta sence to me when the ufc is not obligated to give you fights and can basically cut you at any time and for any reason

conversely the fignter cant leave the ufc or break the contract at will so if you sign for a long time and end up doing well you are locked into whatever they agreed to pay you 8 fights ago or whatever

"with thwe knowledge the UFC does not renegotiate when a fighter outperforms his xontract."

What makes you think that? Any contract in the world can be renegotiated. It happens all the time in every sport.

It likely happens in rare cases where the fighter has a lot of leverage. Most cases fighters aren't big enough draws to reopen negotiations. Just winning doesn't give you leverage. There isn't a whole lot of incentive for the UFC to renegotiate a contract either. You signed it and therefore are obligated to fulfill it. It's not like they are worried that you'll be pissed and leave at the end of your contract like in other sports.

" It's not like they are worried that you'll be pissed and leave at the end of your contract like in other sports."

If they're not worried about you leaving or just sitting out, then why is the question "why do fighters sign long term contracts" if they have no other options in the first place? How would they be better off with a short term contract if their only option when that contract ends is to sign a new similarly crappy one because the UFC has no incentive to make them happy and there is nowhere else for them to go anyway?

" It's not like they are worried that you'll be pissed and leave at the end of your contract like in other sports."

If they're not worried about you leaving or just sitting out, then why is the question "why do fighters sign long term contracts" if they have no other options in the first place? How would they be better off with a short term contract if their only option when that contract ends is to sign a new similarly crappy one because the UFC has no incentive to make them happy and there is nowhere else for them to go anyway?

" It's not like they are worried that you'll be pissed and leave at the end of your contract like in other sports."

If they're not worried about you leaving or just sitting out, then why is the question "why do fighters sign long term contracts" if they have no other options in the first place? How would they be better off with a short term contract if their only option when that contract ends is to sign a new similarly crappy one because the UFC has no incentive to make them happy and there is nowhere else for them to go anyway?

Likely it's to keep them from asking for more money by withholding their services at the end of contract. Once they get some popularity a long layoff can effect the UFC's ability to sell them to the public. A long term contract ensures they fight on the UFCs schedule.

" It's not like they are worried that you'll be pissed and leave at the end of your contract like in other sports."

If they're not worried about you leaving or just sitting out, then why is the question "why do fighters sign long term contracts" if they have no other options in the first place? How would they be better off with a short term contract if their only option when that contract ends is to sign a new similarly crappy one because the UFC has no incentive to make them happy and there is nowhere else for them to go anyway?

Likely it's to keep them from asking for more money by withholding their services at the end of contract. Once they get some popularity a long layoff can effect the UFC's ability to sell them to the public. A long term contract ensures they fight on the UFCs schedule.

They can withhold their services during a contract as well. They can't force a guy to fight. If nothing else, all the fighter has to do is claim injury.

Fighters have renegotiated better deals. It's in the UFC's interests to keep their valuable fighters happy. The ones that aren't valuable don't have any better options anyway.

Of course it's better to keep a valued employee happy but there aren't that many fighters in the UFC that have that kind if leverage to renegotiate. The vast majority fall into the lucky to have a job category. They are the ones that have no choice but sign long term contracts because that is what the UFC is offering. As far as withholding services within a contract or trying to break the contract, historically that has not ended well for the fighter.

JOESONDO -
Of course it's better to keep a valued employee happy but there aren't that many fighters in the UFC that have that kind if leverage to renegotiate. The vast majority fall into the lucky to have a job category. They are the ones that have no choice but sign long term contracts because that is what the UFC is offering. As far as withholding services within a contract or trying to break the contract, historically that has not ended well for the fighter.

How would non-valuable fighters be better off by signing short term rather than long term contracts? If he's not valuable, what leverage is he going to have to get a better deal at the end of a short-term contract?

One time I spoke to a fighter about the contracts. He had just resigned with a 6 fight contract with UFC. He was happy to have a guaranteed number of fights over a certain period. He knew the contracts were slanted in the UFCs favour and they could cut him as soon as he loses. He also was aware it mostly just kept him from fighting in organizations but there are few options for the vast majority of fighters. The alternatives are just not there. That is ultimately why they sign these lopsided contracts.

"I don't consider any contract that gives Zuffa the right to cut fighters after two loses, regardless of how many fights are on the deal, to be a true contract."

The number of fights on the deal is the maximum. Just because it's casually referred to as a "6 fight deal" doesn't mean that is the minimum. If the contract states it lasts until 6 fights, or two years, or a loss, whichever comes first, why is that not a "true" contract? Because you have it in your head that it's a minimum guaranteed fight deal, which it never was or was claimed to be?

JOESONDO -
Of course it's better to keep a valued employee happy but there aren't that many fighters in the UFC that have that kind if leverage to renegotiate. The vast majority fall into the lucky to have a job category. They are the ones that have no choice but sign long term contracts because that is what the UFC is offering. As far as withholding services within a contract or trying to break the contract, historically that has not ended well for the fighter.

How would non-valuable fighters be better off by signing short term rather than long term contracts? If he's not valuable, what leverage is he going to have to get a better deal at the end of a short-term contract?

Value can change over the course of a contract. If you sign an up and coming fighter to a 8 fight contract when he is just grateful to be in the UFC you get him cheap. 3 big wins later he is now a bargain for the UFC. He could have negotiated for more if he had just signed a shorter contract but that wasn't what the UFC was offering at the time. Instead the UFC was offering a long term low pay contract that that was not guaranteed unless he won.

What do you consider overpayment? If the PPV, TV, live gate, sponsors and merchandise revenues are "x amount" after expenses, and the total fighter payroll is 5-10% of "x amount," how are fighters overpaid?

"I don't consider any contract that gives Zuffa the right to cut fighters after two loses, regardless of how many fights are on the deal, to be a true contract."

The number of fights on the deal is the maximum. Just because it's casually referred to as a "6 fight deal" doesn't mean that is the minimum. If the contract states it lasts until 6 fights, or two years, or a loss, whichever comes first, why is that not a "true" contract? Because you have it in your head that it's a minimum guaranteed fight deal, which it never was or was claimed to be?

Because the point of the maximum number of fights is give Zuffa control over the fighters, like an indentured servant.

"We own you for this length of time and there's nothing you can do about it regardless of whether you think the deal is fair or not, but we can get rid of you anytime we want if we don't like how you're performing"

Just because the fighters have virtually no alternative but to sign the contracts they're presented with doesn't make them fair.

No, they can't get rid of you anytime they want, assuming you win, as stated in the contract.

Reply Post

“This is the official website of the Mixed Martial Arts llc. Commercial
reproduction, distribution or transmission of any part or parts of this website
or any information contained therein by any means whatsoever without the prior
written permission is not permitted.”